Open main menu

Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/51

This page needs to be proofread.


upon it to the extent of the moneys so expended, but what kind of a lien? Not a statutory one. ... A lien arising from the equitable circumstances of the case ? But such a lien is un- known in Pennsylvania jurisprudence. It has not been as yet engrafted ujwn our legal system, and it is to be hoped never will be." Sharswood, CJ., dissented. An earlier case,^ where trust money was deposited in a bank with other money, had held that the beneficiaries did not lose their rights ; but dicta to the con- trary occur in the People's Bank Appeal,^ and also in Hopkins' Appeal.^ Though an equitable lien is thus disallowed, the very recent case of M'Laughlin v. Fulton^ allowed a woman, whose money had been invested by her son with his own, to recover sj>e- cifically J| of the land, that being the ratio her money bore to tli6 whole purchase price.

The general rule in this country allows the cestui que trust to recover a specific share of the property purchased. In White v. Drew,^ the trustee bought land for $1,590; $950 of this was paid with money in his hands as administrator. The land was soUk under order of the court for over $6,000, and the plaintiff rdceiv«dl ^% of this. In Tilford v. Torrey,® the court, although finally deciding that there was not sufficient evidence to hold the defend- ant, in discussing the question, said, If part only of the pur- chase money be paid with trust funds, a resulting trust will be created to the extent of the payment, or the cestui que trust may charge the land with the repayment to him of the sum so paid." Similarly, in Greene v. Haskell,^ where the agent of the plaintiff, contrary to his instructions, invested funds of his principal together with his own in the purchase of ivory, the court decreed that the ivory should be sold by a master, and that the plaintiff was en- titled to take the amount misappropriated, with interest, or his proportionate amount, from the proceeds. In other jurisdictions also the decisions or remarks of the court favor this view.®

A question, similar to that which has been considered, arises where trust money is paid into a bank to the private account of

^ Farmers' and Mechanics* National Bank v. King^ 57 Pa. St 202. See also Rupp's Appeal, 100 Pa. St. 531.

  • 93 Pa. St. 107. ' 9 Atl. Rep. 867. * 104 Pa. St. i6i.
  • 42 Mo. 561. * 53 Ala. 120. T 5 R. I. 4^7.
  • Robarts v. Haley. 65 Cal. 397 ; Bazemore v. Davis, 55 Ga. 504 ; Faasler v. Jones, 7

Tnd. 277 ; Derry v. Deny, 98 Ind. 319 ; Morrison v. Kinstra, 55 Miss. 71 ; Lyon v, Atkin, 78 N. C. 258 ; Watson v. Thompson, 12 R. I. 466.